Breaking Paul Ryan continues to be an idiot.

First let’s remember that Paul Ryan is the House Budget Chairman, which makes me want to punch things. According to Igor Volsky for ThinkProgress, Ryan seems to think poor people are lazy, and all problems are caused by poor inner city men, think he’s alluding to anyone there? Apparently, Ryan appeared on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, which as far as I can tell is just another conservative circle jerk, on Wednesday alluding to reforms Ryan is interested in such as work requirements for men “in our inner cities” and deal with the “real culture problem” in the inner city.

And, as we’ve discussed before, Ryan is trying to reinvent himself as the thinking man’s bigot. This time he cited Charles Murray, who is a social scientist who believes African-Americans are less intelligent then whites because of genetic differences and that poverty is a problem because “a lot of poor people are born lazy.” So he'd be a bigot if that isn't clear.

Beer me strength.  Ryan has release that report I wrote about early, and is expected to release the FY2015 budget with proposed reforms to social programs. *head desk*  Ryan said, “[W]e want people to reach their potential and so the dignity of work is very valuable and important and we have to re-emphasize work and reform our welfare programs, like we did in 1996.” He continues, “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

Many programs have work requirements such as cash assistance, long-term unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit…but Ryan is probably talking about SNAP and probably the free lunch programs.

Alright, a review of 1996 Welfare Reform (PRWORA) was passed during the Clinton administration much to the delight of people who hate the poor everywhere and want to punish them for in fact being poor. That’s the subtitle in fine print, just kidding. It turned welfare into a block grant, which means each state gets what they get and no more, so if a state runs out too damn bad. Work requirements are required for most welfare cases, which are a variety of preapproved activities, including volunteer work. It was highly lobbied for by low-wage employers like Walmart and McDonald’s (singing a different tune now, but these people don’t want to pay a fair wage). Failure to comply with a work requirement results in a full family work sanction, which often closes the case for 30 days, even cases with children, so you know, no money for 30 days with kids, no big deal. Finally, the 60 month time limit, after 60 months you no longer qualify for cash assistance ever again. Cases that are child-only are exempt from this one. Also, in some states like Ohio if you have a child while receiving cash assistance that child doesn’t qualify for assistance until they turn 18. End Scene.

What we know since reform? Well, work requirements haven’t reduced poverty. They have contributed to the decrease in the number of people on the welfare rolls, but as mentioned above, the time limit has resulted in people being disconnected. Additionally, work requirements push recipients into low-wage work with high turnover so people cycle on and off welfare, arguably creating the illusion of fewer people. When the economy is bad work requirements are particularly ineffective because no jobs. We also know that work requirements push recipients into jobs with poor employment outcomes like lower wages, instability, etc. The jobs that have better outcomes have more success moving welfare recipients from welfare to sustainable employment, but these jobs are far and few between. Also, fun fact, it appears as those employers (NAICS) codes that have unions affiliated with them, even if the recipient isn’t part of the union, have better employment outcomes. Unfortunately, data to support this correlation is hard to find, with the whole, we don’t care once your off the rolls thought process. All of this has resulted in people in poverty being pushed even further down.

But let’s get back to what Ryan is saying: blame black men for poverty because they are lazy and shirking responsibility.  SHENANIGANS! I’m serious, we can’t blame black men for social problems when we incarcerate them at such a high rate. They would presumably be more active and work if employers couldn’t ask about felonies. I hate this kind of logic, look we’re going to oppress you guys, and then blame you for the problems resulting from that oppression. Secondly, his assertion that this poverty is a cultural flaw is lunacy. Poverty is a result from inequity, people don’t wake up and say “I’m going to be poor today” or” I’m going to be wealthy.” There is a culture to blame though, the one that favors capitalism and greed above everything and everyone else. However, when you have limited means and power then you aren’t part of this culture.

For real though, it is time Ryan stop talking about poverty because he looks like an idiot. Someone help him, I’m starting to feel bad for him.

Paul Ryan asks social scientists to back up his ludicrous poverty plan, and they laugh him out of the room

Ok, that probably didn’t happen, but a girl can dream, right? Ryan’s budget has traditionally been these ideological statements of grandeur that are really the rhetoric we’ve come to know and detest from the right wing. This time, Ryan is trying to add some credibility to his proposal by including a review of scholarly literature of ALL THE THINGS or just all the anti-poverty programs (kids leave this to the professionals). Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, commends Ryan for his attempt, but notes this is a disaster.

 

The Fiscal Times contacted a number of researchers Ryan cites, and they are saying Ryan knows nothing about their research. Essentially, Ryan is picking and choosing what information from the reports and research to include. For example, Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University and visiting scholar at Russell Sage Foundation noted that Ryan seemed to leave out data from the most successful years from the war on poverty. Chris Wimer, a lead author on the paper and a researcher at Columbia, noted that Ryan discounts the major expansion of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 and the dotcom economy from the 90s. Barbara Wolfe, professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, states Ryan’s paper just misstates her findings on the effects of housing assistance on labor outcomes.

 

I can’t even believe that Ryan would use anything published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities…they have a list of errors. Bold move, Ryan, bold move. Chait cites libertarian economist Tyler Cowen who concluded that Ryan’s report shows “only a marginal command of the scholarly literature, and it is a good example of how the conservative movement is still allowing the poverty issue to defeat it and tie it up in knots.”

 

What this all comes down to is that Ryan believes his is a policy wonk, when he clearly isn’t. I blame the people who enabled him in the first place. Ryan knows jack about policy and even less about poverty. Doing a comprehensive literature review on poverty relief programs is an ambitious scope of work for even the most knowledgeable researchers. There is no reconciling evidence and Ryan’s proposal.

 

Of course Ryan’s budget goals are pretty static. He has committed to balancing the budget within the decade, but he wants to achieve this by increases to defense spending, while refusing to increase taxes, all while promising to maintain Social Security and Medicare for all current retirees (note the word current). The only place he has left to cut from is the poverty relief programs.

 

Naturally, the majority of spending cuts proposed by Ryan come from the federal poverty relief programs. Because of where Ryan’s proposed spending cuts come from, he’s starting to look like a someone fashioning themselves out of Ayn Rand’s archetype. All I can say is finally Ryan is starting to be concerned with his image. Let the rebranding begin, except it isn’t going to be as a policy wonk and definitely not as a poverty expert. Research is never going to show that cutting poverty programs helps the poor, in fact most research now shows austerity kills…indirectly. He can read (or skim…have an intern skim) all the research; it isn’t going to show what he wants it to. Maybe Ryan should join his brethren and claim social scientists are part of the liberal elite?

Team Rape returns

Sometimes when it is cold and dark, and I’m nostalgic for the crazy things the GOP says about rape, I think back to those many months ago. Then Paul Ryan does something that brings it all back.

Jezebel’s Laura Beck wrote about the HuffPo piece on Ryan’s Sanctity of Human Life Act Part Dos. We all remember the first time this came up and died in Congress in 2011. It said life started at fertilization and would allow states to ban abortions even in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother, anything but the hand of god.

But it is back and with more crazy. I know, you’re thinking “Kari, how can it be worse?” Well, son, let me tell you. What really sets this bill apart from its predecessor is the clause stating that if a woman is raped in a state that prohibits abortion, and she seeks an abortion in a different state that allows it, the woman can be sued by her rapist. Yes, read that again. So the rapist could sue her to prevent the abortion from happening and probably win. What do we expect in a county where 31 states have paternal rights for rapists? This bill could also make many forms of IVF illegal. Bring on the cray cray.

Breathe easy, this thing will probably die, and hopefully, so will Ryan’s career, and any other jackass who co-signs this monstrosity. These fools will have to realize that the majority of voters don’t want politicians making women’s health decisions for them.

Another fun piece of crazy from last week, Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia mansplained how the GOP went wrong, but not because their views on women are ridiculous and scary wrong, but because they didn’t say it the right way. Prepare yourself.

“Part of the reason the Dems still control the Senate is because of comments made in Missouri by Todd Akin and Indiana by [Richard Mourdock] were considered a little bit over the top.” Oh, really? Do go on.

“Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially.’ Not, in Indiana, that cost him the election.” Did this guy call God a rapist? As an atheist this doesn’t bother me at all.

“And in Missouri, Todd Akin was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’—and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and when has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that.” One day someone is going to use the phrase legitimate rape, and I’m going to be close enough to punch them in the face.

“But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’ body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.” Gingrey is an OB-GYN since 1975 and is the only one I’ve ever heard of who agreed with that statement.

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

Please, some in Georgia strip this man of his license to practice medicine. I still think it is too soon, but we may have to thank “Team Rape” for the 2016 presidential election.

Paul Ryan, Champion of the Poor, suggests cuts in funding

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney will restore upward mobility and fight poverty by destroying the federal government’s social safety net programs. Ok, I’m with you, if I believed all poor people were lazy and taking advantage of the system. The Huffington Post had this posted Thursday morning.

“Upward mobility is the central promise to life in American. But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren’t working the way they should. Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency,” said champion of the poor and Republican Vice President Nominee Paul Ryan.

Ryan noted that people born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than wealthy Americans. Shocking, who knew? Class-jumping, the American myth.

He promised a Romney administration that would help restore mobility by turning the open-ended commitments of the federal anti-poverty programs into “block grants,” which is a fixed sum of money the federal government sends to each state so SNAP becomes like Temporary Cash Assistance, and the states get more control in how they use the fixed sum of money.

“The federal government would continue to provide the resources, but we would remove the endless federal mandates and restrictions that hamper state efforts to make these programs more effective. If the question is what’s best for low-income Ohioans, shouldn’t we let Ohioans make that call?” says Ryan.

Ryan quickly pointed to this being the solution to welfare that was agreed upon by President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1996, which reduced child poverty and increased employment among single mothers. It also saw an increase in low-wage employment, a serious drop in wages (in Maryland some counties have seen drops in annual wages of more than $5,000), stratification of the poor, and more income inequity. As the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities claims, caseloads have declined as the number of families with children in poverty has increased. This is important because few states study their welfare recipients who leave welfare. Maryland does though, and the finds are good in Maryland because they never kick anyone off. They even find ways around the federal time limit with exemptions and extensions, and Maryland even eats the costs.

Ryan tried this as a congressman including attempts to repeal the health care reform and block grant Medicaid. He proposed dramatic cuts to SNAP as well, which more Americans than ever before are using post the Great Recession.

Ryan believes these programs perpetuate government dependency. He also believes that government spending is a threat to the people who rely on these programs. “When government’s own finances collapse, society’s most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe. Many there feel that they have nowhere to turn for help, and we must never let that happen in America,” says Ryan.

Also, Ryan believes that government spending discourages people from giving to charity, “Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds civil society by drawing resources away from private giving.”

I’m pretty sure there are studies showing that women and poor people give larger percentages of their income to charity that the wealthy.  But facts, we’re not running a presidential campaign on facts.

Economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found in 2009 that increased government spending can limit the negative effect on charitable donations, but also growth in charitable giving had mirrored government spending in the last 40 years.

Ryan claims a Romney administration would seek a balance “allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
Ryan close by asking Americans who feel left out of America’s promise to help, “I ask you to support our campaign, because our cause is yours, and your is ours, and together we can achieve great things.”

Shenanigans! Our cause is your cause? Ryan should have looked at the figured of SNAP recipients which is about 46 million recipients in about 22 million low-income households. People shouldn’t be fooled. The only cause any politician cares about it their own. Ryan should stop talking about women and poverty before the election; it just makes him look stupid.